marvelfandomcom-20200222-history
Talk:Galan (Earth-616)
FF Encyclopedia The FF Encyclopedia confirms that, yes, Adventures of the X-Men#12 does show the true origin of Galactus, and that the stories in that title took place in the universe prior to Earth-616. Response: The Adventures of X-Men took place in an ALTERNATE reality. The FF Encyclopedia is mistaken, it has no bearing on 616 reality. The handbook accepted this retcon on the basis that the Living Tribunal appeared in the series, and there are no alternate versions of the Living Tribunal. While that is true, he appears in and has authority over all Marvel universes and it variations. Therefore, just because the LT makes an appearance in a series does NOT automatically make it relevant to the 616 universe. This is where the writers of the Fantastic Four Encylopedia really dropped the ball. Response to the response: The FF Encyclopedia is not mistaken, and the writers did not "drop the ball". They know full well that an appearance by the Living Tribunal does not make the story automatically relevant to 616. The writer of the Galactus entry re-read every single appearance the character had made in preparation for writing the profile, including ones not generally considered canon for the main Marvel universe (all stories published by Marvel are canonical, they just don't all automatically hold true for other universes); this included Galactus' appearance in The Adventures of the X-Men. In that story, there was a portrayal of Galactus' origin; this showed the Living Tribunal (who, as stated by the previous contributor, has no alternate versions; it is unique in the multiverse) consult with his "hooded, spectral ally" (D.C.'s Spectre) and send the Brothers (the two beings who watch over the Marvel and DC universes, as seen in D.C. vs. Marvel) to "assume their pre-destined roles as architects of new realities." Tied in with Galan of Taa being seen to start his transformation into Galactus, the clear implication by the writer was that the reader was witnessing the creation of the Marvel and D.C. multiverses, including 616. Though being revealed in an unexpected title, the universe seen in The Adventures of the X-Men was intended by the writer to be the universe which preceded the multiverse regular Marvel comics take place in. The writer in question was Ralph Macchio, a senior Marvel editor, and the story was written with the assistance of Mike Carlin, a senior DC editor (and someone who would not normally be working on a Marvel title), so the revelations as to the relationships between Phoenix, Galactus, Eternity, the Living Tribunal and the Brothers seemingly had the endorsement of both companies. The revelations regarding Galactus did not contradict any existing stories; it merely showed that Galan would have died with the rest of his universe BEFORE merging with Eternity to become Galactus, if the Phoenix had not acted to ensure there would be a survivor. The Phoenix did not apparently make a conscious choice of who to save, nor have a hand in turning that survivor into Galactus; it simply made sure SOMEONE survived to fill the role. Other origin stories might not show this element, but that does not make this story wrong; it's simply a newly revealed additional element. The writer took the revelations from that story to the Marvel editors, to check if it should be included in the Galactus entry; the decision was that since there was no contradictory evidence (the unusual comic source is not contradictory evidence), then this indeed was part of Galactus' origin, as officially approved and published by Marvel. The Encyclopedia and latterly the Handbook merely reported that fact. Pictures All of the pictures seem to just be of Galactus standing there (plus the one with the different visions of him). It needs pictures of him talking to underlings, or doing things. Dark lord88 01:11, 4 December 2006 (UTC) :I agree, we could always use better images. If you find any, please don't hesitate to upload them! :Cheers, :--JamieHari 01:59, 4 December 2006 (UTC) Bad Character Is Galactus a bad character?? I think he is a neutral charakter Peter :I might say he is neutral as well. It will probably be a big debate, but is survival such a cruel thing? We eat cows, chickens and fish? I bet their 'families' aren't too happy about that either... :--Jamie 01:37, 26 December 2006 (UTC) : I see your point, but we don't kill billions of people daily. And if we did do that we'd be fild with guilt (probably). :--User:MutantKingMagneto (UTC) ::Thats true, but was Galactus not standing above it? I mean it is not a human or a a humanoid creature. He is more a force of nature/universe to hold the balance right. (with Death and Eternity I thought) so is an hurricane, earthquake bad?? Peter Wildenbeest 06:30, 31 July 2007 (UTC) :::I get what your saying. It's just kinda funny cuzz, I've always felt that humanity strecthes it chances, and when it goes to far nature takes it toll on them and youve kinda explaind that Galactus is kinda like that (well with the three Empires at least). And he has been a force of good before and we all know nature has been lets say, a best friend. User:MutantKingMagneto :Oh yeah just to say we make it so those species do not go extinct. He does not really care unless they did something for him. MutantKingMagneto :I thing Galactus is neutral. Sure, yeah, he eats planets, but he has a purpose. He is a necessary evil. I mean, if not for him, the universe of earth-616 would become overpopulated! -User:Ngl42398 Status Could mighty Galactus be considered a Diety? Perhapse with his heralds there's a pantheon of sorts. Well, Galactus is the member of a cosmic pantheon which consists of Eternity, Death, Infinity and Oblivion. He may even have worshippers, but he doesn't consider himself a "god" like Thor or Odin do. Of course there are different definitions of "gods" even within the MU. Ben 15:59, 6 April 2007 (UTC) Is Galactus a Mutant Is Galactus a mutant? Because he was reborn in the new universe with all this power, and maybe his mutant powers are what sustain him. But in order to support his mutant powers he needs to eat planets. I know that he aint a humanoid, but one of the whole reasons Stan Lee made the X-men was cause he heard about a three leged frog. User:MutantKingMagneto :Galactus, in my opinion, is not a mutant. :Mutation occurs when you change form from something that was previously considered 'normal'. (I know... a very broad term.) :He has been the way he is currently, since the 'big bang'. :I wouldn't consider that a mutation... :He might have even been the same before the big bang, as Galan. Who knows? :--Jamie 17:03, 31 July 2007 (UTC) ::I get what your saying, it's just that there are so many qusetions that the Writers leave un aswered that we have to ask here. :--User:MutantKingMagneto (UTC) Galactus is his real name? Is Galactus his real name? I thought Galan was his name, and he renamed himself Galactus in the modern Universe. MutantKingMagneto :Galan IS his real name...revealed at this point. We are still in the process of renaming pages to their given names and this one is up for debate. Personally, I think it should be Galan per the naming convention, but Galactus would be searched for MUCH more often. What do you think? --M1shawhan 23:26, 13 August 2007 (UTC) ::Galan (Earth-616) is the way to go. Make a disambig out of Galactus, since Franklin Richards Became Galactus in Earth X.--Peteparker 18:30, 8 September 2007 (UTC) :::Galan was his name a universe ago. Doesn't count. You get to pick your own name when you're the first living thing in a new universe. Those are the rules. A casual user will not recognize the name Galan, but they will recognize Galactus. The site exists to provide accessible information to the curious, not to obscure it behind an excessive commitment to technicalities. --PiranhaSister, 17 September 2007 ::::That's a very interesting viewpoint. Was the previous universe still Earth-616? The title of the page is definitely not meant to confuse, but it's not meant to represent the most recognizable name for each character either. There is a Title section in the template that allows for that, and redirects will always take the casual user to the right page for what they are looking for, or at least the disambiguation page. ::::--Your Friendly Neighborhood Peteparker (talk • • ) 17:33, 20 September 2007 (UTC) :::::Does Galactus still use Galan anywhere for anything? That's what he calls himself. It's not a code name. He doesn't go out, do Galactus stuff, and then return to his secret lair to live a normal life as Galan. When he started calling himself Galactus, it counted as a legal name change, except there weren't any courts and no one had invented the concept of law yet or atoms that had more than 4 electrons. But still. As for whether he belongs under Earth-616, he does because there are alternate versions of Galactus, even some that don't eat planets, I think. :::::PiranhaSister 06:23, 26 September 2007 (UTC) ::::::That's a very good point too, he does only refer to himself as Galactus, and never Galan. It's not like anyone else refers to themselves as purely their alternate name, so maybe his was "legally" changed. If we can find out when and why he was actually referred to as Galan, maybe that will put the final nails in the coffin on his page being named Galan. Anyone know that info? ::::::--Your Friendly Neighborhood Peteparker (talk • • ) 19:08, 26 September 2007 (UTC) ::::::: Wikipedia says that Galan of the planet Taa was the last person in existence in the universe prior to ours. Right before the universe was destroyed in the big crunch, the phoenix force collected all the positive emotions of all the living things that ever to create the "The Sentience of the Universe" which is something like Eternity. The Sentience said that both it and Galan will die in the big crunch, but be reborn through a joint heir in the next universe. Then the universe crunched, began again, and Galactus emerged from an energy cocoon after a few million years. So, Galan (Universe -1) technically died. Galactus is a merged being incorporating what's left of Galan. Also, there was a storyline where Reed Richards separated Galactus into two parts, Galan and the Power Cosmic. Galan then runs away and hides in another dimension, hoping the Power Cosmic won't find him. But it must have because Galactus was back for Annihilation. So make of that what you will. :::::::PiranhaSister 01:14, 27 September 2007 (UTC) ::::::::Excellent! That's an amazing amount of knowledge, Piranha! Galactus (Earth-616) it is! ::::::::--Your Friendly Neighborhood Peteparker (talk • • ) 01:23, 27 September 2007 (UTC) :::::::::There's no amount of information I can't copy and paste. :::::::::PiranhaSister 13:32, 27 September 2007 (UTC) :Actually, in this week's issue of Beta Ray Bill, he says to Bill "Your people are gone no longer. Your destiny is your own once more. Consider yourself lucky. For all my power, Galan of Taa will never be able to say the same." Seems to me that he still considers himself Galan on some level, and likely sees Galactus as the role he's forced to play in the universe (and it's been explained countless times that he's a necessary force). The whole idea that because the previous universe ended doesn't make him Galan isn't really accurate. While he's definitely changed and not the same Galan, it seems more like what he underwent is similar to what the Silver Surfer underwent to become his herald. Part of his essence was lost, but the core entity was still intact, just irrevocably changed. And he definitely seems different from Aegis and Tenebrous (though I'd love to see them explained more) who have an odd connection to him. :--GrnMarvl14 02:20, 30 August 2009 (UTC) ::I think Galactus should be kept as his page name. the name galactus is more knowned, compared to Galan. and im pretty sure that galactus gets more searches. and btw, galactus sounds better then galan :D. ::--Anvillious 14:58, 30 August 2009 (UTC) :Oh, if only all our pagenames were based on what 'sounds best'... :Galactus (Earth-616) is very convenient, but I'm all for accuracy too. It would seem that Galactus is a merged being, with Galan of Taa being a part of that, but not the whole. In other cases of merged beings, we either have both names in the pagetitle, or we use their conjoined name as the pagetitle, or we give each part their own page, and have a page for the joined being. So I'd say those are our three options here. :— Nathan (Peteparker) (Earth-1218) (talk • • ) 15:34, September 3, 2009 (UTC) : I think PiranhaSister's argument still holds: Galan was a character in an alternate/previous universe, so if anything, there might be a separate page for him. Galactus came into being with the creation of the 616-universe, which makes his name for the 616 (and most alternate universes) Galactus. The fact that this makes more sense because we all know him as Galactus is kindof like an added Bonus... ;) --edkaufman 11:48, November 15, 2009 (UTC) Galactus is definitely a neutral character. He says he is nature, The size of Celestials Adult Franklin Richards was shown roughly as tall as the heads of the Celestials shown in Fantastic Four 604. This is matter of fact and not subjective. It has been established that the power of Celestials is relative to their size. Exitar is 6000 metres tall and stronger than his brethren at 600 metres. Hence, Celestials at 30-40 metres should logically be weaker than the average ones. Hence, it is relevant to mention that they were drawn much smaller than average. Antvasima (talk) 22:21, February 10, 2014 (UTC) Okay, I have now uploaded the relevant images from Fantastic Four 604. This is the page that I was first thinking about of Franklin seeming to be the size of the mad Celestial's head. However, when I rechecked I discovered that when right next to the Celestial, he was about one third the size of the Celestial's head. Hence, using average humanoid body proportions of the head usually being at least 1/8th of the body length, and taking into account that Franklin is at most 2 metres tall, we end up with: 2x3x8=48 metres. Let's say 50 to be on the safe side. Whereas an average Celestial is 610 metres tall, and their size is established as relevant to their comparative power. Antvasima (talk) 08:09, February 11, 2014 (UTC) The drawers not always respect the size scale. They are not always consistent. Here Thor flies next to Arishem and he is almost the same size of Arishem upper body's, even though Arishem is several hundreds meters high: http://s388.photobucket.com/user/OneDumbG0/media/Thor%20Fights/ThorvsCelestials05.jpg.html. Paradoxically he is drawn much bigger soon afterwards. Here Arishem seems to be much smaller in comparison with Thor:http://i388.photobucket.com/albums/oo326/OneDumbG0/Thor%20Fights/ThorvsCelestials02.jpg.html. My argument is that the drawer not always reproduce the precise size scale. The size varies throughout the comics. Without a official scale provided by the comic the opinions are always subjective. Archangel 1980 (talk) February 11, 2014 (UTC) The first image is disqualified, as Arishem is very far away from Thor, whereas Thor is an insect up close, and for the second the over 2m Thor is about as tall as the thickness of the hilt of the sword. That would still make Arishem around 240-320 metres tall in that simgle image, which is much easier to rationalise as the artist simply having a hard time getting the precise scale right than a Celestial being drawn at less than 1/1000 their usual volume. As for my calculation earlier, then no, that is not subjective. The Celestials were shown outright as 50 metres, not several hundred, just 50. That is an enormous difference, and afaIk the mad Celestials were consistently drawn at this much smaller size from their introduction during the council of Reeds saga and onwards, whereas they were generally drawn at several hundred metres during the 4th Host and Pangoria arcs. Hence, it cannot be seen as a temporary artist's mistake, but rather intentional. Remember that time in Gaiman's Eternals series when the 30 metres tall Giant Man stood next to a massively towering Dreaming Celestial? That's roughly how the mad Celestials would look next to a full size Arishem. Antvasima (talk) 18:25, February 11, 2014 (UTC) How did you calculate the distance between Arishem and Thor? In the first picture of the first image they seem very close to me. Again, this is a subjective and unbiased statement. I could claim that Franklin was far away from the Celestial based on the same argument. Right after this another picture portrays properly the size difference, what demonstrates the inconsistency of the drawer. Finally, in the first picture of the second image Arishem has visually about ten to twenty times the size of Thor. No way he is depicted as 300 times bigger. In short, i see no reason to classify these Celestials as "small" Celestials. Archangel 1980 (talk) February 11, 2014 (UTC)